Supreme Court to Review Law Student Exam Bar Over Attendance

The Supreme Court of India has taken up a significant legal question concerning the eligibility of law students to appear in examinations despite a shortage of attendance, agreeing to examine a Delhi High Court judgment that held students cannot be barred solely on this ground. The apex court, on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, sought a response from the Bar Council of India (BCI) on a plea filed by Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS) challenging the Delhi High Court's ruling. The Delhi High Court's landmark verdict, delivered in November 2025, had stipulated that no student enrolled in a recognized law college or university could be detained from appearing in examinations or continuing academic progression solely due to insufficient attendance. This judgment was a culmination of proceedings connected to the tragic suicide of Sushant Rohilla, a law student who was barred from exams over low attendance in 2016, sparking widespread debate on rigid attendance rules and institutional responsibility. The Delhi High Court had underscored that attendance norms should not lead to mental trauma or contribute to student suicides, directing the BCI to re-evaluate mandatory attendance requirements in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and UGC regulations. However, the Supreme Court, comprising a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and Vijay Bishnoi, while issuing notice on the NMIMS petition, notably refused to stay the Delhi High Court's ruling for the time being. The bench clarified its intention to hear the matter thoroughly, observe the arguments, and 'lay down the correct position of law.' Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing NMIMS, argued before the Supreme Court that the Delhi High Court's judgment had effectively rendered attendance requirements meaningless, expressing concern that students might no longer feel compelled to attend classes. He contended that the ruling could lead to a 'floodgate' of litigation from students seeking exemptions and undermine academic discipline. The Supreme Court justices appeared to share these concerns, observing that the broad implication of the High Court's judgment could be that National Law University hostels might become 'just boarding and lodging facilities' if classroom attendance were not deemed essential. The Court also tagged the NMIMS plea with a pending batch of petitions challenging various BCI circulars, including those introducing mandatory criminal background disclosures, declarations regarding simultaneous academic pursuits, employment status, and overall attendance compliance for law students. This indicates a broader review by the apex court into the regulatory framework governing legal education in India. The petitioner, NMIMS, further argued that classroom teaching remains foundational, especially for five-year integrated law programs, and that practical training, moot courts, and other co-curricular activities cannot entirely substitute regular lectures. They emphasized that Rule 12 of the BCI Rules on Legal Education, 2008, already mandates a minimum of 70 percent attendance, with provisions for condonation up to 65 percent in exceptional cases. This argument highlights the tension between institutional autonomy and the need for academic rigor versus student welfare and flexibility. The Supreme Court's decision will have significant implications for legal education institutions across India, aiming to strike a balance between maintaining academic standards and addressing the welfare and rights of students.

Frequently Asked Questions

Read Full Story on Quick Digest